Shack’s author stokes debate over the cross

Controversy surrounding William P. Young’s The Shack has drawn attention to a major theological debate that many readers of the popular novel may not be aware of.

The debate concerns how Christians understand the significance of Christ’s death on the cross. Questions are being raised about one of the traditional concepts of the atonement.

The controversy came to light in a popular forum recently, when Baptist pastor Kendall Adams interviewed Young on radio station KAYP in Iowa. Adams pressed Young on why he had God assert in the book: “I don’t punish sin. Sin is its own punishment.”

Young stated: “The cross is the plan of God … to redeem us back from being lost, living in the grip of our sin … There’s no hope for any human being … apart from the cross.”

However, Young also stated that God is always motivated by love, and the wrath of God is always directed against sin, not against sinners. Therefore, God the Father did not punish Jesus on the cross as the penalty for human sin.

Young also raised the possibility of “ultimate reconciliation,” that all people will be saved, reconciled to God in the end.

Adams replied that Young was denying “penal substitutionary atonement” — that Jesus paid the penalty for human sins on the cross — which Adams stated was “the heart of the gospel.”

Young agreed that he did not fully accept the penal substitutionary view of the atonement.

In the interview, Young defended his position by stating that there is “a huge debate that’s going on in theology right now within the evangelical community” concerning the doctrine of the atonement.

These are only a few of numerous recent books on the subject of the atonement. Others include In my Place Condemned He Stood: Celebrating the Glory of the Atonement, by J.I. Packer and Mark Dever; and The Future of the Atonement: A Response to N.T. Wright, by John Piper. These books contain endorsements by a variety of Christian leaders, and lists of other books on the subject.

Theologians from Canada, and BC in particular, are very involved in this broad-based theological debate. Young himself is the son of Canadian missionaries.

Jersak is a leader with Fresh Wind Christian Fellowship and Fresh Wind Press, based in Abbotsford. The contributors to his volume include Wayne Northey, co-director of M2/W2, a prison ministry based in the Lower Mainland; and Ron Dart, who teaches religious studies and political science at the University of the Fraser Valley.

Another of the contributors to Jersak’s book is N.T Wright, Bishop of Durham in England, who frequently lectures at Regent College in Vancouver — which is where J.I. Packer is the Board of Governors’ Professor of Theology.

The first thing Boersma said is that the current debate is not new. From the beginning of the church, Christians have struggled to understand the meaning and implications of Christ’s death on the cross.

Christians have, in general, taken three main approaches.

1. Christus Victor

The first is the ‘Christus Victor‘ approach, which sees Christ as coming to conquer death. Jesus became human and died on the cross so that human beings could be ‘deified‘ and enter into the eternal life of God.

This view was common in the early church and remains the dominant view in the Eastern churches, such as the Orthodox denominations.

2. Substitution

The entombment

The second approach is the substitutionary theory, which comes in various forms: Jesus came to earth and died on the cross as the representative of human beings, so their sins could be forgiven.

It is sometimes suggested that this view was developed by the 11th century theologian Anselm of Canterbury in his book Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man).

It was later accepted by the Protestant Reformation — it still finds many of its staunchest defenders among Reformed theologians — and by many evangelicals. However, while Anselm formulated this position very clearly, it was also present in many earlier theologians as well, said Boersma.

Wow, superb blog layout! How long have you been blogging for? you make blogging look easy. The overall look of your website is fantastic, let alone the content!

David

yeah, i told my friends about the book after i read it. i had many troubles with the book, including the lady oracle who was to be God, the way “God” put away the depressed man’s Bible and instead tucked him in good night. The way “God” did not want to do devotions at the kitchen table but wanted to goof around towel whipping. as for those who say its just a book, remember in the preface the author made the claim that its up to the reader to make up his mind whether the story is true or not. This is why I am reading less of man’s books and reading more of the Bible. “Let God be true and everyman a liar.”. Christians are already confused with todays false spirituality with gurus telling us to use the catholic chanting, or the hindu meditation, or the spirit guides of new age, or the over stuffed couches of the emergent church…getting you all cozy before you leave the door of faith. its the frog in the beaker dish that doesnt know the burner under him is slowly being turned hotter slowly killing him.

steve weatherbe

A young Orthodox priest was saying something very like Young’s comment about God not punishing Jesus for our sins. The Orthodox priest seemed to think this was what we were taught in the Western Church–Catholic or Protestant. I can’t remember which father of the Church he said started this view. But how many Christians would understand the Atonement that way: God punishing his Son for our sins? Not me: Jesus taking upon Himself the pain and suffering of our sins, yes, but an act of love on His part, in which surely his Father must share, not an act of punishment.

Laws63

the shack is inspired. Inspired by sarayu – the hindu god of universalism. Young and his ilk ie Ewgene Petersen who added to both the Old and the New testaments to make the Word “less offensive” are on the same emergent church/new age fad drug; which is nothing new at all. It (both authors’ “inspired” works) is satanic in origin … flee.

Walter Rachinski

In your June 2009 issue [of BC Christian News] re: READERS’ FORUM placement of our extended article re: the true meaning of the cross: on the right side caption: Church now in sad spiritual shape, by Lionel Jubinville, Vernon–the brief summary struck a responsive cord concerning our perspective of what we see in evangelical church trends toward sensationalism in houses of worship. I salute Mr. Jubinville’s observations. We need an en masse return to what is imbodied in Jude 3 i.e. to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. Walter Rachinski (wrbibleministries@live.ca)

Walter Rachinski

Where the debate should begin is that Jesus’ substitutionary sacrifice completed the work of atonement “once for all” (Heb. 9:12, 25-28. Where the debate should end is God’s eternal purpose i.e. he chose us in him before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight (Ephesians 1:4). See our more detailed response in the June 2009 issue of BC CHRISTIAN NEWS. Walter Rachinski Bible Ministries

shutts

I would have to say that I entirely agreed with A. Martin as I sat through my first theology class at seminary, but I have come to love the deep mystery of God and would like to point out the most profound of the statements made in this article;

“Therefore, it is important to “bring humility to the table” and try to understand each other. We can “never say we have explained it all,” said Boersma, since human language is “always inadequate to fully define the divine mystery.”

But what a joy it is to search and learn little pieces of God’s great mystery… as we humbly love our neighbour, do justly, love mercy and walk with our God.

A. Martin

If we spent half as much time learning how to love our neighbour as ourself, do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with our God, we’d be much better off. Theology is man’s attempt to take control of understanding the mystery of God. Get over it. We’re not all going to be given exams when we get to heaven.

Eddie Chu

Thank you for bringing this issue to forefront. My systematic theology professor brought this to my attention, because the Atonement theory was my final paper at seminary. One question we need to answer is this: Is it necessary for God to uphold his righteousness and holiness by insisting on punishing all sinners with ETERNAL separation from him? No question God punishes–it is clear especially throughout the Hebrew scripture–but is the motivation for God’s punishment different from the intent expressed in Hebrew 12 1-9, and is it eternal?

Greg Bitgood

This was an excellent and balanced explanation. I always appreciate when multiple perspectives of an issue are presented. I would also like to recommend Randal Rauser’s book, “Finding God in The Shack.” He is professor of historical theology at Taylor Seminary.

Servant

Thank you for this insiteful explanation. I have neighbours on both sides of me saying the opposite of each other as regards the Shack. You have done an excellent job of putting a human face and language on a very deep religious quagmire. Have a happy and Holy Easter season.